NH Can Set a National Example by Opposing a Federal ID Card

One way or another, New Hampshire will soon again lead the
nation. It may set the standard for protection of freedom, civil
liberties and privacy. Or it may become a premier example of how a
state legislature turns into a servant of the federal
government.

On the side of freedom is the state House of Representatives. In
March it passed a bill prohibiting the New Hampshire government
from participating in the U.S. national ID card system.

The REAL ID Act is a federal law that blackmails states into
producing federally approved driver’s licenses and identification
cards. If a state is not participating in REAL ID by 2008, the
federal government threatens to bar its citizens from air travel,
entry to courthouses and other areas and activities controlled by
federal checkpoints. REAL ID also requires states to put
information about their citizens into a massive federal
database.

The New Hampshire House voted to resist the Feds’ national ID
and surveillance plan. Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, led a debate
inspired by the principles of freedom and independence that support
that state’s motto, “Live free or die.”

Kurk’s advocacy turned aside a House committee recommendation to
go along with the national ID program. The House approved his
anti-national-ID proposal. Next week, the Senate’s committee on
transportation will hold a hearing on Kurk’s bill.

Why wouldn’t the Senate have the same loyalty to the principles
of freedom that the House demonstrated? One simple reason: $3
million.

When Congress passed REAL ID last year, federal politicians knew
that a national ID was both repugnant and expensive. So they tucked
it into a must-pass military spending bill and they provided for
grants of federal taxpayer money to compliant states.

Some of that money is slated for New Hampshire. If New
Hampshire’s government will sell its citizens’ privacy, it gets a
pile of federal cash. The Senate should refuse this dirty money and
stand up for New Hampshire’s citizens like the House did.

New Hampshire’s decision on REAL ID would be a close call if a
national ID would actually fix the problems our nation faces. But a
national ID would neither prevent terrorism nor stem the tide of
illegal immigration.

The Madrid bombings of March 2004 happened in a country that has
a national ID. British civil liberties group Privacy International
has studied the relationship between national ID cards and
terrorism prevention and found that 80 percent of the 25 countries
most adversely affected by terrorism since 1986 have national ID
cards.

If REAL ID had been the law on 9/11, it would have had no
influence on al-Qaida’s plan. Though many people assume the
opposite, the 9/11 terrorists were in the United States legally.
They had legally issued drivers’ licenses and Social Security
numbers.

Should terrorists ever need a false REAL ID, U.S. immigration
policy will surely help them. The conflict between our economic
demand for cheap labor and our country’s tight lid on legal
migration means that there is a steady demand for false documents.
Time and again across the country, state motor vehicle workers have
been corrupted by criminal networks that feed false documentation
to illegal immigrants. REAL ID will not change this. But it may
force us to rely on DMV workers for our security, a mistaken
strategy if there ever was one.

Requiring all Americans to carry a national ID is not a response
to 9/11 or a preventive of terrorism. It would satisfy the federal
government’s demand for control, not Americans’ genuine need for
security.

Law-abiding, native-born citizens should not pay the price for
the evil intent and wrongful acts of others. But that’s exactly
what a national ID would do: deprive the honest citizen of rightful
freedom and privacy.

If Congress wants Americans to carry a national ID, Congress
should vote for it openly, pay for it directly, and answer to
voters itself. It should not slough its national ID policies onto
the states.

The New Hampshire Senate should decline to let New Hampshire
become an administrative unit of the federal government. And it
should show that New Hampshire is rightly a nation-leading state in
adhering to the principles on which America was founded.